Humanitarian Law and detainees in the Armed Conflict in Ukraine

2016

The analysis of the Minsk agreements implementation (a common name for a package of documents adopted in September 2014 and February 2015 aiming to resolve a current crisis in the Eastern region of Ukraine) demonstrates that despite a few steps forward, the systematic violation of certain clauses as well as serious manipulation of the others by the so-called ‘Donetsk People Republic’/ ‘Luhansk People Republic’ (‘DPR’/‘LPR’) combatants and the Russian Federation has been observed and confirmed by the international community. Lifting international sanctions seems the only incentive for Russia to comply with the Minsk agreements. Its current tactic involves partial implementation, which would help to apply for easing sanctions and thus to decrease the cost of its waging war against Ukraine. At the same time, Russia preserves the possibility to re-escalate the currently low-intensity-conflict at any convenient moment.

A common theme in historical and contemporary warfare is the role of militias. Militias, both pro-government and rebel, act beyond their sponsors or else they would be understood as part of the armies that go to war. We think of militias as being paramilitaries, para-meaning approximate but not collocated with the military. Paramilitaries are ordinarily recruited and resourced differently. They are also ordinarily tactically different, playing a role in front line warfare where the intensity may be high, but were the position is fast changing or distributed in local areas. As the conflict literature will show, militias, or paramilitaries, are a common feature of any conflict and thus it is no surprise that we see their use in Ukraine. For the conflict in Ukraine, we use the term paramilitaries to indicate those forces that are fighting at the front line for both the Kyiv government and rebels in Donetsk and Luhansk, with these being considered 'pro-Russian' and even include Russian citizens. Relying on the pro-government militias literature, we show how militias on both sides play an important role in the conflict but also pose the biggest threat to a sustainable peace.

‘See you in The Hague!’ This expression is popular amongst the politically active part of the Ukrainian general public who raise their voices online. Political leaders in Ukraine, including President Poroshenko and Prime Minister Yatsenyuk, use references to ‘The Hague’ in their interviews and social media posts, as the judicial instance of last resort when describing the future of the Russian leadership, the militants in parts of the Donbas region, and those responsible for the killings during the Maidan (or Euromaidan) protests.

The Two-Stage Territorial Conflict Between Russia and Ukraine, 2019

The present analysis does not reflect the official position of the West, nor of Ukraine, nor of Russia in the case of the Ukrainian crisis. It is an expert analysis that focuses on the realities. There is no aim to form a "politically correct" position.

This publication is the result of work of a group of authors of various competencies: investigative journalism, politology, geography, and history. Written as a kind of vade mecum, this guidebook will familiarize the reader with the precursors, problems, terminology, and characteristics of the war in the Donbas. The book is targeted at experts, journalists, and representatives of international missions working in Ukraine. It will also interest a wide range of readers trying to understand and develop their own opinion on the situation in the east of Ukraine.

Since Russia’s seizure of Crimea and the beginning of the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine, many in Kyiv have taken to the idea of enlisting the help of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague to punish those responsible and discourage further belligerence. Political leaders in Ukraine, including President Poroshenko, like to publicly invoke ‘The Hague’ as a judicial instance of last resort when describing the future of President Putin, senior Russian officials, the militants in parts of the Donbas region, and those responsible for the killings during the Euromaidan protests. At the same time, the widespread use of such a vague term as ‘The Hague’ or ‘The Hague tribunal’ to mean the International Criminal Court indicates that many Ukrainians – including senior officials – do not understand what the ICC stands for and how it works. At the same time, due to the lack of experience of Ukrainian national courts in prosecuting international crimes, the unprecedented scale of crimes committed, and the general lack of confidence in the judiciary, the ICC may be an important transitional justice mechanism for Ukraine.

Ukraine in Crisis (Edited by Nicolai Petro), 2017

Ukraine previously experienced significant regional political divisions, including separatism in Crimea and Donbas. However, in contrast to post-communist countries such as Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, and former Yugoslavia, prior to 2014 Ukraine was able to avoid a war and a break-up. This study examines the role of separatists, the Yanukovych government, the Maidan opposition and the Maidan government, far right organizations, Russia, the US, and the EU in this conflict. It uses a specially commissioned survey by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) in 2014 to analyse public support for separatism in Donbas, compared to other regions of Ukraine, and the major factors which affect such support. It concludes that all these actors contributed in various ways to the conflict in Donbas, which involved both a civil war and a direct Russian military intervention since August 2014. The study links this conflict to the " Euromaidan, " specifically, the government overthrow by means of the Maidan massacre, and the secession and Russia's annexation of Crimea. The KIIS survey shows that support for separatism is much stronger in Donbas compared to other regions, with the exception of Crimea, and that the break-up of Ukraine is unlikely to extend to its other parts.

As of 2017, UNICEF estimates that the conflict in Donbas has resulted in nearly 1 million children in need and nearly 200,000 of those children live within 15 kilometers of the contact zone. With severe damage to infrastructure, daily violations of the ceasefire agreement, and the psychological consequences of living amongst military violence, these children face enormous barriers in the pursuit of basic education. This paper assesses those barriers and offers solutions that should be undertaken by the Ukrainian government, NGOs, and civil society organizations.

National minorities in Crimea have been subject to systematic violations of their rights since the illegal annexation of Crimea by Russia on 18 March 2014. Documented violations have occurred in the areas of freedom of expression, conscience, and religion; the right to peaceful assembly and association; freedom of the media and access to information; the right to a fair trial and effective remedy; the right to education in one’s native language; and linguistic and cultural rights. The de facto authorities in Crimea have neglected to investigate cases of grave violations of the rights to life, liberty, security, and physical integrity. The response of the international community has been limited. While Western countries pursue non-recognition policies towards Crimea, international sanctions introduced in response to the occupation of Crimea are weak, and there have been no measures taken to address the international humanitarian law and human rights violations in Crimea. Limited support is available to human rights organisations focused on or working in Crimea, and human rights monitors still cannot gain access to Crimea. The European Union, and the European Parliament, in particular, should actively advocate for the establishment of an international human rights monitoring presence in occupied Crimea. Tailor-made support programmes should be offered to Ukrainian government agencies and civil society working towards the protection of the rights of Ukrainian citizens in Crimea. The European Parliament should continue raising the issue of human rights violations in Crimea and monitor individual cases. Furthermore, the Council of the European Union should consider imposing sanctions for the violations of international humanitarian law and human rights in occupied Crimea.